Geothermal Energy Development in California

Karl Gawell, Executive Director, GEA

State of Geothermal Energy in California

• In 2005, 5.0% of California’s electric energy generation came from geothermal power plants. This amounted to a net-total of 14,379 GWh. In 2005, California’s geothermal capacity exceeded that of every country in the world. California currently has 2492.1 MW of installed capacity.

New Projects Under Development

New Projects Continued

15 Geothermal Projects: 921.3-969.3 MW

These projects would produce about as much electricity as achieving the state’s 3,000 MW solar goal.

Future Potential is Significantly Greater

Issue: Resource Potential Not Well Understood

• The consensus of the geothermal community is that the geothermal resource potential in California is significant, unrecognized, and undeveloped.

• CEC/PIER identification of addition 2800+ MW of potential is a high probability estimate of known sites – more a reserve estimate than a resource estimate.

• Other studies estimate up to 25,000 MW or more is possible.

• Resource estimates do not consider new technology and non-electric power potential.

Geothermal Resources are Widespread

Resource Impediments

Wide Variety of Resource Types in CA

Restricted Number of Capable Exploration Entities

Improved Development of Exploration Tools and Technology is Needed

Chicken and Egg Problem of Resource Exploration/Identification

• Need to secure lease/land rights before exploration (which costs $ 2 million+ per site)

• BLM doesn’t issue leases because it is unsure of development potential (it costs BLM significant $$ to process lease requests, which in California usually require a full EIS).

• Possible Answer: BLM/FS is conducting Programmatic EIS for new leasing, CEC should be a cooperating agency and coordinate state decisions with federal initiative

• Possible Answer: CEC should support new California Resource Assessment – Use part of GRDA funds?

Making a Fundamental Change in the Future Outlook for Geothermal Energy in California

• Support and fund new statewide resource assessment that considers the full range of geothermal technologies and identifies high priority areas for development or further study

• Support development of new technologies for exploration – possibly coupled with new federal “Advanced Geothermal Research” legislation (HR 2304) which calls for two geothermal technology centers to be established

Leasing-Permitting

• Significant part of the cost of a greenfield project can be attributed to the delays associated with leasing and permitting

• Much of the resource in California involves mixed federal-state-private lands – multiple jurisdictions can mean multiple levels of processing

• Federal and state leasing and permitting decisions need clear timeframes

Addressing Administrative Impediments to Development

Lack of knowledge and/or fear of geothermalAgency staffEnvironmental groupsPublic

Lack of trained agency staff for timely permittingFederalStateLocal

Lack of established interagency coordination LeasingEnvironmental Review – CEQA and NEPAPermitting

Policy Impediments

California has no effective policy supporting development of geothermal energy:

• CEC Energy Plan has few geothermal specific policies

• The state has biomass, solar and wind initiatives but no comparable geothermal plan

• Meeting state Climate and RPS will be more costly and difficult without significant geothermal contribution

New technology to consider: distributed/small-scale generation

• Project at Chena Hot Springs in Alaska uses 165F water to power a 225kW generator for on-site generation

• UTC power plans production of 225kW and 1 MW units

• Would allow production from wider range of sites throughout the state

• Impact on California could be significant

California Should Consider All Geothermal Technologies

Other Technologies to Consider Expanding Support for:

• Geothermal Heat Pumps• Geothermal Direct Use for Space Heating

and Commercial Heating Purposes• Combined Direct-use Small Power

Developments

Transmission• Geothermal development sites are in remote

areas• Transmission Planning is critical

– Support SCE study approved by CPUC • Trunk lines constructed to high geothermal

potential areas by the utilities is critical to success – Similar approach to Tehachapi – Interconnection costs need to be predictable for

developers

Contact:

Karl GawellExecutive Director

Geothermal Energy Association209 Pennsylvania Ave SE

Washington, DC 20003202-454-5264

karl@geo-energy.orgwww.geo-energy.org